DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
As to claims 1-20, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1, under the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), the analysis proceeds as follows:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory category?
Yes. Claim 1 recites a series of steps, and therefore, is a process.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. Claim 1 recites obtaining log information and a determination that the log information includes….., which other than reciting a generic computer-implemented method, describes a mental process. Furthermore, claim 1 recites generating a first and second probability distributions, calculating a first and second means…., determining a difference between the first and second means, which other than reciting a generic computer-implemented method, describes a mathematical formula or calculation. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer-implemented method does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process or mathematical formula/calculation grouping. Thus, a judicial exception is recited.
Note: Claim 1 does recite causing the second configuration of the second edge site to be used for a service request in response to the determination. However, this limitation does not change the determination that the claim recites an abstract idea because it merely applies the result of the abstract idea to generically select another alternative based on the mathematical concept, which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity for merely being the result of the abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional elements of a computer-implemented method and causing the second configuration of the second edge site to be used for a service request in response to the determination. As mentioned above, the computer-implemented method is related to generic computing, and the limitation of “causing the second configuration of the second edge site to be used for a service request in response to the determination” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity for merely being the result of the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
NO. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component for generic data gathering, analysis, and apply results with a generic computer, which is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
As to claims 10 and 19, they are also rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1.
As to dependent claim 2-9 and 20, they are also ineligible as they still relate to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claims 2, 11, and 20, it does recite “causing the first configuration of the first edge site to be used for the service request”, but similarly to claim 1, it merely applies the result of the abstract idea to generically select another alternative based on the mathematical concept, which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity for merely being the result of the abstract idea.
As to claims 3 and 12, it continues to merely apply the result of the abstract idea in a generic computing environment.
A to claims 4 and 13, additional mathematical operations are introduced that reinforces the abstract idea.
As to claims 5 and 14, outputting an indication is considered post-solution activity.
As to claims 6 and 15, additional mathematical operations are introduced that reinforces the abstract idea.
As to claims 7-8 and 16-17, additional types of input data are introduced, which is insufficient to integrate it into a practical application.
As to claim 9 and 18, the introduction of epsilon merely defines a mathematical parameter, which reinforces the abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The term “relatively smallest hamming distance” in claims 4 and 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively smallest hamming distance” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 10-12, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doshi et al. (hereinafter DOSHI) (US 2022/0124005 A1) in view of Harutyunyan et al. (hereinafter HARUTYUNYAN) (US 2020/0117566 A1).
As to claim 1, DOSHI teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
obtaining log information (SLOs, KPIs may be captured; and/or real-time telemetry, non-real-time telemetry, and/or E2E telemetry) ([0031]-[0033]; [0144]; Fig. 11);
in response to a determination (via orchestrator system) that the log information (SLOs, KPIs may be captured; and/or real-time telemetry, non-real-time telemetry, and/or E2E telemetry) includes first log information (telemetry/latency/monitoring data is collected at the first of a “variation of configurations”, etc.) associated with a first configuration (first configuration from a “variation of configurations based on Edge location, etc) of a first edge site (first compute node of a plurality of compute nodes or a first Edge node among multiple Edge nodes) and second log information (telemetry/latency/monitoring data is collected at the second of a “variation of configurations”, etc.) associated with a second configuration of a second edge site (second compute node or second Edge node of the plurality), performing a first predetermined equivalence test (testing against SLA, thresholds, etc.), wherein the first predetermined equivalence test includes (Abstract; [0043]; [0056]-[0057]; Fig. 4):
generating configuration probability distributions based on metrics of log information (metrics such as mean response time, projected response time, average queue length, latency percentiles (P95, P99, etc.)) ([0037]);
in response to a determination that a determined difference is greater than a predetermined value, causing the second configuration (effectively reassigning after comparison; selecting alternative configuration via “corrective action”) of the second edge site to be used for a service request ([0037]; [0227]).
DOSHI does not explicitly, completely and specifically teach wherein the first predetermined equivalence test includes:
generating first configuration probability distributions based on metrics of the first log information;
generating second configuration probability distributions based on metrics of the second log information;
calculating a first mean of the first configuration probability distributions and a second mean of the second configuration probability distributions;
determining a difference of the first mean and the second mean; and
in response to a determination that the determined difference of the first mean and the second mean is greater than a predetermined value, causing the second configuration of the second edge site to be used for a service request.
However, HARUTYUNYAN teaches obtaining a plurality of log information (event messages stored in logs, etc.) ([0004]; [0035]) used for performing a first equivalence test (comparing multiple distributions derived from different message blocks, specifically, blocks of event messages, event-type distributions are computed, and similarity between pairs of event-type distributions ETi and ETj) ([0045]-[0046]; [0051]; Figs 9-11). A first and second configuration probability distributions are generated based on metrics of the first and second log information, respectively (event-type distribution is computed, which represents probability distributions from logs) ([0005]; Figs 9-11). The Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of term “probability distribution” could involve any statistical representation of data, frequency, likelihood, etc., derived from log information. Therefore, HARUTYUNYAN’s event-type distribution satisfies a probability distribution under BRI. Furthermore, a first and second mean (averages of similarities across distributions) of the first and second configuration probability distributions, respectively, are calculated via the average similarity of each event-type distribution ([0053]; Figs 9-11). A difference of the first and second mean is determined by a normal discrepancy radius, which is calculated as the difference between the maximum and minimum average similarities ([0053]; Figs 9-11). Finally, HARUTYUNYAN teaches in response to a determination that the determined difference of the first mean and the second mean is greater than a predetermined value (SimAve(ETrt)≤ThNDR or ThNDR>SimAve(ETrt) comparisons to determine abnormality) causing an alert to be generated indicating abnormal behavior of the event source ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the application to apply HARUTYUNYAN’s distribution-based analysis to DOSHI’s telemetry data and for DOSHI to take its corrective action when alerts occur, as taught in HARUTYUNYAN. DOSHI performs a corrective action when thresholds may be exceeded ([0217]). HARUTYUNYAN would improve this through its extensive method of comparing distributions using statistical measures and thresholds (Fig. 9-11), which would yield the predictable result of a more robust and accurate way to determine abnormal behavior that should be corrected.
As to claim 2, DOSHI ([0037]; [0227]) in view of HARUTYUNYAN ([0005]; [0051]; Figs. 9-11) teaches the method of claim 1, comprising: in response to a determination that the determined difference is less than the predetermined value, causing the first configuration of the first edge site to be used for the service request.
As to claim 3, DOSHI teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein causing the second configuration of the second edge site to be used for the service request includes instructing a predetermined schedule to schedule the service request to be fulfilled by a server included in the second configuration (via orchestration), wherein causing the first configuration of the first edge site to be used for the service request includes instructing the schedule to schedule the service request to be fulfilled by a server (via orchestration) associated with the first configuration (computer node/server and clusters) (Abstract; [0227]; [0037]; [0032]; [0082]; [0141]).
As to claim 7, DOSHI teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the metrics of the first log information and the metrics of the second log information are the same type of metrics, wherein the metrics are selected from the group consisting of: central processing unit (CPU) utilization, load, average power consumption, peak power consumption, throughput, response time, and tail latency ([0031]-[0032]; [0037]; [0227]; [0139]-[0140]).
As to claim 9, DOSHI teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined value is epsilon (latency threshold, SLA threshold, threshold power, critical threshold based on computational activity, etc.) (Abstract; [0030]; [0033]; [0140]; [0190]).
As to claim 10, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 11, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 12, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 3.
As to claim 16, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 7.
As to claim 18, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 9.
As to claim 19, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 20, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOSHI in view of HARUTYUNYAN, and further in view of Jayachandran et al. (hereinafter JAYACHANDRAN) (US 2013/0305092 A1).
As to claim 8, DOSHI ([0032]; Figs 11-12) in view of HARUTYUNYAN ([0005]) teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the metrics of the first log information and the metrics of the second log information are the same type of metrics. DOSHI in view of HARUTYUNYAN does not teach wherein a first of the metrics is a number of page faults. However, JAYACHANDRAN teaches monitoring various systems and application metrics such as page faults, context switches, etc. and that each data metric can be represented as a moving average time series or sequence of values ([0020]; [0026]; [0030]-[0031]; Figs 2 and “page-faults-corr-diff-thr” of 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the application to modify the monitored metrics of DOSHI in view of HARUTYUNYAN to also include page faults, as taught and suggested in JAYACHANDRAN. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide the predicted result of improving diagnostic accuracy by monitoring beyond the typical one or two resources only (such as CPU and memory) but expand to include monitoring of other resources, including page faults (JAYACHANDRAN - Abstract; [0019]; [0022]).
As to claim 17, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 13-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, in addition to overcoming 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b) rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH TANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets can be reached at 571-272-3338. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KENNETH TANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights